EVE Search - "Resist bonuses are over powered" -CCP Fozzie

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

"Resist bonuses are over powered" -CCP Fozzie

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Hannott Thanos Notorious Legion 380	Posted - 2013.02.22 09:47:00 - [1] - Quote "The 5% resist is over all a better bonus than the 7.5% rep bonuses, it's also overall better than the 10% rep bonus." http://wiggles.gamingradio.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/podcasts/Insertshownamehere.mp3 27 minutes in. He continues to argue that it's an advantage that the AAR runs a lot longer. How is slow cycle time a good thing? "So yeah, due to recent population control, over consuming have gone down for the better of mankind" "Oh, and it was ****** that did the population control" Edit: Is Adolfs last name prohibited? So there it is. Resist bonuses are overpowered and quote "better than 10% rep in almost all cases". I know we are only at "Armor tanking 1.5", but where will this go to make active armor tanking balanced? Will we keep the local rep bonus?
Hannott Thanos Notorious Legion 380	Posted - 2013.02.22 12:31:00 - [2] - Quote Eugene Kerner wrote: WHo made that disgusting "******" quote? I did. Maybe not very tasteful, but that's how stupid I think the reasoning is for the whole "AAR is good because it lasts longer than ASB because of longer cycle time" You can't take something horrible and argue that it's a good thing because of one tiny extremely specific element in the argument. Fact: Fewer people on the planet would be better. Also fact: Killing off the population is not a good way to do that.
Hannott Thanos Notorious Legion 380	Posted - 2013.02.22 12:56:00 - [3] - Quote Derath Ellecon wrote: Next time attribute quotes in your OP to the proper people better. Would create less confusion. Yeah, I removed it. Anyway, any thought on the topic? He did confirm that 5% resists are better in basically every way compared even to the 10% rep bonus which he even removed from the Incursus. What could possibly be released in Armor Tanking 2.0 to fix the imbalance?
Hannott Thanos Notorious Legion 380	Posted - 2013.02.22 13:00:00 - [4] - Quote Roime wrote: I'd be very happy with 10% local rep bonus on Myrm. 7.5 rep bonus is just an insult, and we certainly don't need two Gallente BCs with pure solo PVP bonus. And yes I agree that the hilarious idea that 8 slower and weaker reps last longer than 9 faster and stronger reps should be buried asap. Less EHP gained over a longer period does not equal a longer lasting tank, it means you die faster. I too would like to have a 10% rep bonus on the Myrmidon. I really love that ship, but I end up going shield tank on it anyway because dps is the better tank imo. To make an efficient armor tanker out of it you have to manage 5 modules (3 reps, 2 boosters) while also managing drones, guns, range and all things pvp. Or you know, strap on an ASB and tank even better with more dps and less managing. Kinda unfair.
Hannott Thanos Notorious Legion 380	Posted - 2013.02.22 13:39:00 - [5] - Quote Vilnius Zar wrote: ASB has 9 with navy boosters, I'm sure you just "forgot" that little tidbit of info. Current AAR is a silly solution with last minute mechanics based on no logic or balancing at all, it's below par when compared to ASB. I think the AAR should be able to load either 8 metal scraps or 12 nanite pastes, and you should be able to fit more than one. With 2 ASB's you can cycle them for almost a permatank, with 15 seconds between them. If CCP really wanted the AAR to "last longer" they would not limit it to one module and make it use less charges than the ASB. It's really annoying.
Hannott Thanos Notorious Legion 380	Posted - 2013.02.22 13:48:00 - [6] - Quote Felicity Love wrote: ... nice to see that hornet's nest kicked with the first cup of the day ... patch isn't even 3 days old.... ooooo-rah. Just to note, I'm all for the AAR, it's a step in the right direction to make armor tanking more viable. I'm just sad to see that because the ASB was pre uber buffed and OP, and still is OP, they now do it the other way around with armor, and release a module that has a great "meh" written on it in comparison. The AAR is not bad, but it's nothing like what the ASB was or is.
Hannott Thanos Notorious Legion 380	Posted - 2013.02.22 13:57:00 - [7] - Quote Takseen wrote: What if rep bonuses were changed to "armor repair effects applied to this ship are 7.5% more effective per level"? Alas, he also said in the interview that he would not let remote reps become any stronger. This is funny, because I love flying the Brutix but I can't remember if they changed the wording on the rep bonus or not. It used to, and might still say 7.5% bonus to armor repairer effectiveness, not specifically amount. Now THAT, is something that would be nice. Effectiveness, as in, 7.5% reduced cap usage 7.5% reduced cycle time 7.5% repair amount Maybe dial it down to 5% then, but still.
Hannott Thanos Notorious Legion 386	Posted - 2013.02.22 17:04:00 - [8] - Quote La Nariz wrote: The solution here is simple increase the repair bonus to bring it inline with the resistance bonus. Except that it is in line. The EHP pr cycle is almost completely the same on a ship with 5% resist and a ship with 7.5% repair amount. The problem is that the ship with resist bonus also get a lot more EHP from remote repairing and a lot bigger buffer tank. Not sure if your statement was serious....
Hannott Thanos Notorious Legion 391	Posted - 2013.02.23 13:17:00 - [9] - Quote Altrue wrote: An ASB is limited by cargo space while AAR are not. So thankfully they DO use cap, becaues otherwise it would just be cheated. And for the "modest rep amount boost", T2 large armor repair repairs 800, while T1 (remember this is T1 module) Large AAR repairs 1350. You armor guys are never satisfied aren't ya ? A medium AAR repairs 45 HP/s An L-ASB boosts 97,8 HP/s An XL-ASB boosts 196 HP/s You shield guys never want balance do ya?
Hannott Thanos Notorious Legion 391	Posted - 2013.02.23 14:58:00 - [10] - Quote La Nariz wrote: Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote: La Nariz wrote: The solution here is simple increase the repair bonus to bring it inline with the resistance bonus. Welp, if you increase that rep amount, I can still fit them to my resist bonused hull, making it exponentially better. Resists in this case would be even better. Not the repair amount of the module, the repair bonus on the hull. To what? Fozzie said that even a 10% bonus is still inferior to the 5% resist bonus. In what world do you think they would ever increase the bonus to 15%?

Hannott Thanos Notorious Legion 398	Posted - 2013.02.25 08:25:00 - [11] - Quote Reaver Glitterstim wrote: ITTigerClawIK wrote: that and the fact that the ASB not only uses no cap with boosters, but also makes amuch better rep burst tank, then you got the AAR that not only needs the charges but still uses cap, still has a WAY longer Cycle time for what is still a very modest rep amount boost. I haven't used the AAR yet but I'm thinking that if it were to be able to run a lot more cycles than the ASB before needing to reload and if it reloaded quickly, it would be balanced just fine. It makes shields great for burst tanking and armor great for sustained tank. When you want armor for burst tank, you buffer tank. When you want shields for sustained tank, you buffer tank. Agree. They are very clear on the "armor should not be equal to shield." and "armor is supposed to be a more sustained type of tank." And yet, the AAR has all the downsides and none of the benefits of the ASB* *Ok, you can run it after it's out of charges for a stupidly small amount of rep.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.